Punjab-Haryana High Court
Suman Rani And Others vs Delhi Road Transport Corporation ... on 16 February, 2011
FAO No.2253 of 2009 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
FAO No.2253 of 2009
Date of decision : February 16, 2011
Suman Rani and others
...Appellants
Jasbir Singh and others
...Respondents
Present: Mr. R. S. Mamli, Advocate
for the appellants.
Mr. Kunal Garg, AAG., Haryana for
for respondent Nos.2 and 3.
Ms. Vandana Malhotra, Advocate
for respondent No.4.
****
K. Kannan, J (Oral)
1. In a fire accident at the Record Section of Civil Revision/FAO Branch of this Court on 30.1.2011, several files were burnt.
2. The Registry has reported that the file is not available and it is likely that the papers connected with the case have been consumed in fire. Learned counsel for the appellant has furnished copy of all the relevant papers connected with the case. The papers submitted shall substitute the papers that are unavailable and shall constitute for all practical purposes as the records of the Court. Papers are duly reconstructed in the above fashion.
3. The appeal is for enhancement of compensation on the ground that the assessment of income of the deceased was not properly made. He was having two buffaloes and he had income from agricultural operations and in dairy business. In the absence of any FAO No.2253 of 2009 2 evidence better than oral assertion, the Tribunal took the income to be `3,000/-. I will find no reason to take a different view. Although, learned counsel states that he was earning `10,000/-.
4. As regards the contribution to the family the deceased left behind a widow, two minor children aged 15 and 13 and aged father of 72 years of age. The counsel seeks for a deduction of 1/4th and not 1/3rd as done by the Tribunal. Learned counsel for the Insurance Company would state that father was not a dependent. Learned counsel states that even the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sarla Verma Vs.Delhi Road Transport Corporation reported in (2009) 6 SC 121, father was not treated to be a dependent. The dependence of father is invariably a matter of evidence and if there is no counter evidence suggesting that the father had any independent source of income there is no reason for discarding such a plea, since even the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007, a father who is entitled to be supported by the son if he has no other independent means. There is specific evidence in this case given by the daughter-in-law that all the petitioners were dependent on the deceased for their subsistence.
5. I will reassess the compensation to provide for the contribution to the family at `2250/-per month and take the loss of dependency at `4,05,000/-. I will add to the conventional heads of claim which have been awarded, `5,000/- to the wife for loss of consortium and `5,000/- to each one of the minor children for loss of love and affection. The Tribunal has awarded `5,000/- for funeral expenses which I will retain and make a further provision for `5,000/- for loss to estate. I find the total compensation payable at `4,30,000/-. The amount in excess of what has been awarded by the Tribunal shall carry interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of petition till the date of payment. The accident had taken place in the year 2007. The amount of increase which has been FAO No.2253 of 2009 3 awarded shall be taken in the same proportion in which the amount is determined by the Tribunal and the directions for deposit which are contained in the Tribunal's award shall continue.
6. The appeal is allowed to the above extent.
(K. KANNAN) JUDGE February 16, 2011 archana